thom space

The easy way to explain the prevalent position of males in most history books is simply to say that most history books are male dominated. This explanation, however, does not come close to shedding light onto the reason why it has historically been the case that males have dominated. The reason males have been in a position of power through out history is because they have asserted themselves continuously as the One to the Otherness of the woman. The reason this has enabled males to dominate is because it is only as the One that a person can rightfully be said to be a full human being, and only fully human beings are able to create great things that would be worthy of remembering, let alone recording in a history book. Women have traditionally accepted their position as that of the Other, and have, in such, accepted an existence short of being fully human. One would not expect something that is not fully human to do memorable or great things, so it makes sense that women would, by and large, be left out of most history books. The reason that women are not as prevalent in prominent roles though out history is not because of male bias but rather because women in their sub-human state of Otherness have failed to equal the achievements of males in their fully human state of Oneness.

In order to understand why an Other can not be fully human, first one must understand what constitutes the term .human.. The term .human. can best be defined as Being and Nothingness as understood in the context of Sartreian/Beauvoirian existential thought. A person is nothing in so far as he/she is not a thing, what differentiates a person from a thing is what a thing is not. A thing is an object that is something in itself, that is a thing is what it is. An example of this phenomenon is easily observed when looking at a spoon that one might use for the purpose of stirring tea, a spoon is what it is, a spoon can rightfully be said to have a being insofar as the being of a spoon is to be a spoon. It would take a third party acting upon the spoon to change its being, for instance I could pick the spoon up and hit you with it, thus changing the spoons being to that of a weapon, but short of being acted upon the spoon is what it is in itself, it is a thing.

A human being.s being is not to be. This is the case because a human being is no-thing, a human being is nothing. What differentiates a human from a thing, like a spoon, is the fact that humans are constantly becoming more than they are. Through the act of choosing, human beings constantly transcend themselves, the closest a person could be said to having a nature would be the statement that a person.s nature is to be free. This is so because a person can not choose not to choose, as to choose not to choose is still a choice. The necessary freedom, that is human nature, is only limited by the context created as the consequence of freedom. The context that a person makes his/her choices in Sartre/Beauvoir refers to as a person.s facticity. Facticity is the being of .Being and Nothingness.. The reason facticity is important to, and included in, the ontology of existentialism is the fact that the consequence of every choice is the responsibility of the person who made it. A person who is moral inside of this system accepts both their freedom and facticity in good faith, that is, they are honest to the extent that they affirm both that they are radically free and wholly responsible. On the other hand a person is said to be immoral and in bad faith when they do not recognize their inherent freedom and responsibility. It is with bad faith that historical male dominance can begun to be understood.

Historically women have not affirmed their freedom but instead have been defined as objects in relationship to men. The definition of woman in terms of Otherness is the most severe form of oppression possible on the part of man, in so far as it defines woman as an object and denies her full human status. Insofar as women accept this position and men create this position both parties are guilty of bad faith. Both parties are guilty because women choose to be objects insofar as they do not choose to actively assert themselves as nothing by redefining themselves out side of the context of the Other. Men are in bad faith insofar as they do not recognize the freedom and facticity of women, because in choosing not to recognize women.s nothingness they choose not to recognize their own nothingness and inasmuch fall into bad faith.

This accounts for a history that is apparently dominated by men because women have never been in the position to function as full human beings. An example of this is clearly seen in Virginia Woolfe.s A Room of One Own. Woolfe makes an example of Judith Shakespeare, who is said to be the exact intellectual equal of her brother William Shakespeare, who is arguably the most successful and prolific writer of all time. Judith wants nothing more than to be a writer of her brother.s caliber but unfortunately is not allowed to do the things that William did in order to realize his genius. For instance where William was able to go out alone into the world to explore and encounter life, Judith was kept at home to tend the house and watch the kids. She was treated like an object with a task, while William was treated like a free being with a future. His freedom manifested itself in his great works where Judith.s objectification led to her eventual suicide. The point is that women have not traditionally been able to realize there potential on account of male oppression, but the history books only reflect the works of those people who where able to realize there potential, that is why William is in the history books and Judith is not.

The argument that Virginia Woolfe makes for the case of women having a room of their own in A Room of One.s Own is founded upon the notion that women need to assert themselves positively but can not unless they cease being oppressed and are treated in a like manner with men. Virginia Woolfe is herself an example of what a woman looks like who lives in good faith. She had positively asserted herself and in so doing realized her potential earning herself a position in the history books reserved for full human being. It is the result of women like Virginia Woolfe that today history books are filled with the accomplishments of women who have asserted themselves as human beings in the face of male dominance, and women must continue to assert themselves as human beings, because as Simone de Beauvoir said in the Second Sex .There is no justification for present existence other than its expansion into an indefinitely open future..